[$1000] Web - Inconsistency in the email's content when verifying the new contact method.

[izarutskaya]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Action Performed:

1. Login to any account.
2. Go to Settings >> Profile >> Contact method >> choose New contact method.
3. Provide the new Contact method and click Add >> check the email's content.
4. Click on the "Didn't receive a magic code?" option to get a new verification code >> check the email's content.
5. Observation: The email content in step 3 and step 4 is not consistent.

Expected Result:

The email content sent in step #4 should be similar to the email sent in step #3, in order to avoid confusion with the magic code used for login.

Actual Result:

There is inconsistency in the email content between step #3 and step #4. The email’s content at step #4 is confusing because it appears the same as the email used for login.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: v1.3.57-0

Reproducible in staging?: Y

Reproducible in production?: Y

If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

20230824_180036.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @tranvantoan-qn

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1692036965973929

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01624b023e6db373cc
• Upwork Job ID: 1696962559910027264
• Last Price Increase: 2023-08-30

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @maddylewis (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

@maddylewis Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

@maddylewis Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[maddylewis]

sorry for the delay on this one. there were some other things that i needed to prioritize over this, but let me try to repro now!

[maddylewis]

Okay, so when i add a Secondary Login, I receive an email titled Verify secondary email for Expensify:

And, if i click Didn't receive magic code?, I receive a new email titled Your magic sign-in link for Expensify:

---

The link in the Didn't receive magic code? email doesn't work for validating a Secondary Login so it sends the customer in a loop and they might end up needing to delete / re-add their secondary login to resolve this.

[maddylewis]

I don't think this is necessarily a bug. asking about this here.

[tranvantoan-qn]

Please note about the attached link too.
The link in the 2nd email can not be used for secondary email validation either (as It is a link for login).
So the text + the email's structure is confusing and doesn't make sense in the context